I have decided that I will be doing my project on the story of Beowulf. I seen the movie and heard the stories of him, but i never actually read the story and interested to find out more about it.
Goals
Have Beowulf read by October 4th.
Visit library October 6th for research on topic
Set-up metting with Dr. T to discuss topic later that week
Start annotations, quotations, and summary to be done by October 10th.
Reread annotations and summary and fix any issues
Research outside sources and find a scholar source by October 15th
Have next annotations done by October 25th
Reflections on scholarship done by October 30th
Start thinking of Thesis for big paper on October 31st
Go over all work and fix what is needed by November 3rd
Set up another meeting with Dr. T to see progress and thoughts and opinions on what I can do by week of November 5th
Start rough drafting big paper by middle of November
Finish Abstract of article by November 11th
Make sure arguement against scholar article is completed by November 18th
Have annotations done by November 20th
Review all work November 22nd
Scavenger hunt November 24th
Finish up big paper and have done by December 8th.
Have paper checked and fix anything that it needs. Turn in early morning December 12th
Annotated Bibliographies Farrell, Jennifer Kelso. “The Evil Behind the Mask: Grendel’s Pop Culture Evolution.” Journal Of Popular Culture 41.6 (2008): 934-949. Academic Search Complete. Web. 9 Oct. 2014
Farrell writes about how Grendel is perceived in the story by other characters and the real world. Grendel is an outcast from humans, and although he is considered a monster Farrell gives a little proof that the author also tries to humanize him. She also gives examples of other works regarding Grendel, for example, John Gardner’s novel Grendel she describes “…puts the reader directly in Grendel’s head…” (Farrell 939). Farrell gives good examples of Grendel in different pieces of work, but they all have the same conclusion; Grendel is an evil being who enjoys violence, killing, and is greedy. We see Grendel kill and eat humans and this is where Farrell gives evidence of Grendel being related to Cain. Not only does she use obvious proof in the reading, she also points out Grendel is a killer somewhat of a brother killer because he kills human beings like Cain killed Abel (Farrell 937). My main idea for my paper is showing Grendel, although described as being different, he was human in more ways than one. He has human blood in him, which came from Cain, but also his personality makes him human-like as he has the same feelings as humans do. Farrell gives good examples of both lineage and personality that he is very similar to other characters.
Nelson, Brent. “Cain-Leviathan Typology in Gollum and Grendel.” Extrapolation. 49.3 (2008): 466-483. Academic Search Complete. Web. 9 Oct. 2014
The article written by Nelson gives a great perception of how Grendel is connected not only to Cain, but also Leviathan. He also talks about how Grendel was an inspiration for Gollum, which gives a good understanding of how Cain influenced the creation of both of them. He also brings up several times how Grendel is a mirror of the people in the poem, like how he is “a fierce spirit who dwelt “pystrum bad”” (Nelson 469) and how the mead hall is full of festivities. He also brings it up how Grendel being a cannibalism contradicts on the people’s view of brotherhood. Nelson also brings up how similar he is to Cain physically and similar traits, for example, he “bears the mark of God’s anger” (Nelson 470) and how he is exiled the same way Cain was. I get a better understanding of Grendel and how similar he was to Cain on a physical and mental level. He seems to be not just a monster, but a human with different morals than the characters he is surrounded by.
Reinhard, Ben. "Grendel and the Penitentials." English Studies. 94.4 (2013). 371-385. Academic Search Complete. Web. 9 Oct. 2014
Reinhard's piece of writing touches on several great points on Grendel and how he is portrayed in the poem, gives his understanding on why Grendel is the way he is, and comparing him to Cain. He tried to give a better understanding of Grendel's character and uses evidence from the story and outside sources to prove his argument. He also compares Grendel to other characters who did similar things as him, but was no treated the same way. For example on the first page of the article he talks about violence between Hrothulf and Hrothgar's sons and neither of them are exiled or looked down upon the way Grendel was. Reinhard also compares Grendel's character to Cain in Penitential of Columbanus about how they are both "kin-killers" and were exiled due to their crimes. What I also like is Reinhard calls him a "anti-thegn" on page 372, which the footnote says is "a grotesque parody of a human." It's similar to one of the other articles that says Grendel is a mirror of human beings. In this article he is talked about as a mirror, but he represents the evil and violent side of man.
Story Summary Beowulf is an outstanding story in poem form that follows the courageous hero Beowulf as he battles three mighty foes that no one was able to come close to defeating. We are first introduced to King Hrothgar and how he has built a mead hall for his men, but they seem to be having an issue with a murderous giant named Grendel. King Hrothgar sends word throughout the land if anyone is able to kill this Grendel he will be showered in gold. Beowulf and his men arrive and we are introduced to him, a serpent killing, giant spider stomping, hero that came to save the day. Beowulf and his men have a small party in the mead hall named Heorot, where all the attacks occurred and waited for Grendel to show. When Grendel showed up he got into a fight with Beowulf, who decided to fight the giant with no weapons, and was able to rip his arm off mortally wounding the monster for good. The King has a huge power for Beowulf and his men and stay true to his promise and showers them with riches beyond they could imagine. As they sleep Grendel’s mother attacks the mead hall and kidnaps the King’s trusted adviser as she runs away to her cave. The King asks for Beowulf’s help and promises him even more gold if he kills Grendel’s mother. Beowulf agrees and goes into the cave alone to fight the creature and tells the King to take care of his men in case he dies.
A battle ensues and because of Beowulf’s armor he survives a surprise attack and finds a sword on the wall and uses it to kill the beast. As he searches the cave he sees Grendel’s body and cuts his head off to bring back with him. As he returns the King rejoices in his success and throws another party for the hero and his men. Beowulf and his men leave back to their homeland where they tell the king and everyone of Beowulf’s bravery and accomplishments. It is then talked about how the King dies and Beowulf becomes the new King of his homeland for the next fifty years. An old man at this point, another creature is brought into the story, a dragon, threatens Beowulf’s kingdom and attacks his people because a thief has stolen his treasure. He puts his armor on again for another courageous fight without any weapons like he did with Grendel and succeeds to kill the murderous dragon, but is mortally wounded himself. His people take all the gold the dragon has been protecting, but feel ashamed Beowulf had to die for them to get it. Beowulf is praised for all eternity for his courageous actions and killing the three monsters.
Quotations Quote #1: “I shall grapple with the fiend and fight for life, foe against foe. Let him put his faith in the Lord's judgment, whom death takes.” Beowulf VI 439-441.
In these two lines, one I find Beowulf to be a little cocky to fight the giant Grendel with no weapons or armor knowing he murdered so many men. Two I find Beowulf a little contradicting when he wants Grendel to pray to the God's, but yet he sees him as a demon figure. It also goes to my point that Beowulf is really sure of himself because he's basically saying he is going to make this demon ask for God's help. From the very beginning when I was introduced to Beowulf I kind of seen him as arrogant and someone with a huge ego. The stories he tells of killing monsters, although they do sound amazing, they are in the end just stories and I felt Beowulf may have been putting his foot in his mouth wanting to fight Grendel straight up. No sane person would go head to head with a giant who is supposedly a descendant of Cain and who is made up of pure evil. The fact Grendel killed about thirty people already before and ate them while some were still alive is terrifying and to think one man is down to fight him with no weapons is insane. Beowulf being so confident shows either he's really that good or he's just to all there. The second part I'm confused about whether Beowulf was just contradicting himself or if he is really that confident in his fighting. He talks about Grendel putting his faith in the Lord's, but know he is an descendant of Cain and calls him a devil, so why even bring it up? Knowing Grendel probably hates the God's or doesn't believe them why say it? Unless he is that confident that he will succeed in beating Grendel, he forces him to pray for some type of mercy. With just two lines Beowulf is able to show how confident and how stronger he is than Grendel even though he has not seen him yet
Quote #2: “This grim spirit was called Grendel, mighty stalker of the marches, who held the moors and fens; this miserable man lived for a time in the land of giants, after the Creator had condemned him among Cain's race- when he killed Abel the eternal Lord avenged that death.” Beowulf I 102-108.
This is when we are introduced to Grendel and giving a little history about where he came from. What I find interesting is Grendel was an outcast by the Creator, and at the same time he was an outsider to the people in Hrothgar’s kingdom. We know he is not welcomed in the town of King Hrothgar’s land because he has murdered many people and refuses to pay for their deaths, but not much is giving why the Creator banished him. Other than being a giant what was his reason? It almost seems Grendel's fate was already written for him because he was singled out just for being a giant. It's understandable that in the end he did become a murderous monster, but he was seen as that from the beginning which could have lead him to be that way. Everyone was calling him a monster so mine as well act like one, but I find it more interesting he is basically part of Cain's race which makes him part human. Maybe he could have had a chance to be different if only he was accepted? He maybe a giant from Cain's race, but that still means he has some part of good in there.
Quote #3:“The water was welling with blood there-the terrible swirling waves, all mingled together with hot gore, heaved with blood of battle, concealed that doomed one when, deprived of joys, he laid down his life in his lair in the fen, his heathen soul-and Hell took him.” Beowulf XIII 847-852.
The death of Grendel revealed several things to me about the monster. His death was exactly how his life was; full of pain and sorrow and solitary. Grendel was born with murderous urges that made him different than his fellow man that cause him to be an outsider. He killed many people causing others pain and in return was not accepted and was shunned by others leaving him to be in pain and being alone other than his mother. Blood is brought up several times as blood was a part of his life, having the blood of a monster in him while having the same blood as the people he killed. Also the blood he spilled and drank could now be seen leaking out of his body as a karma type thing. He also called a heathen, but at this time Beowulf and the other characters are pagan, wouldn't that make them also heathens? It makes another connection between Grendel and the people he killed that maybe he wasn't so different. The author tries to take that thought out of my head when he says Grendel goes to Hell, because Beowulf and the other people do not go there; no they all go to heaven apparently.
Annotated Bibliographies Chapman, Roger L. “Alas, Poor Grendel.” College English 17.6 (1956): 334-337. JSTOR. Web. 2 Nov. 2014
In Chapman’s article “Alas, Poor Grendel” he not only talks about how he feels sympathy for Grendel, but the author also felt sympathy for him. While I was reading the article, I noticed he brings up a lot that the author was stuck between emotions, “felt two kinds of emotion toward Grendel and wavered between them” (Chapman 335), making Grendel this devilish creature and has compassion for him. Chapman brings up numerous passages where he believes the author is trying to express some sympathy for Grendel while describing the type of monster he is in appearance and his personality (Chapman 334). After thinking about it I was a little confused as why the author would paint Grendel as something so evil, but then try and make me feel sorry for him. It’s like he wanted to show Grendel being such a horrific character, but it’s not his fault for being so evil; he was born that way. Chapman also questions the author’s knowledge of Christianity, “He applied Christian charity without discrimination, or without understanding:” (Chapman 335), since there are some discrepancies in Beowulf. I found Chapman’s take on this interesting because the characters are pagan and he assumes the author should know about Christianity when they don’t believe in “no Heaven, Hell, nor Purgatory” (Chapman 335). It does make me wonder why the author would even put anything Christian in a story where all the characters follow paganism.
Gardner, John. Grendel. New York: Knopf, 1971. iPad
In Gardner’s book “Grendel,” he gives a first person narrative of what he believes Grendel’s life was like in Beowulf. Although I have not fully read the whole book, I was only able to download nine out of twelve chapters, Gardner gives a look into the mind of Grendel and his feelings about the the people he has met. It’s interesting Gardner tries to make Grendel seem like a misunderstood soul, that there is more to him other than a murderous monster. I like how He compares Grendel to the other characters, for example he notices the humans attack and murder one another for things so small, but yet he is looked down upon when he does the same thing. He kills sometimes to eat, while he notices humans will kill because of their emotions or for land or something as dumb as not agreeing with one another. Gardner also makes Grendel embrace his destructive side, as Grendel is treated rudely and attacked he decides if they want to treat him like a monster, he will start acting like one. It reminds me of the Creature in Frankenstein where he also embraced his evil side because people treated him as if he was evil. I also found interesting Gardner decided to put the dragon into his story and sort of make him a friend of Grendel, and in the real story Beowulf it isn't classified if they even knew one another.
Kiessling, Nicolas K. “Grendel: A New Aspect.” Modern Philology, 65.3 (1968). JSTOR
Web. 2 Nov. 2014
It seems to me that Kiessling’s article “Grendel; A New Aspect” focuses on the vocabulary and how some words are used in the Beowulf to describe Grendel. He brings up the word “maere” often and the different meanings other scholars and himself see it being used in the story. The word originally means a succubus or incubus and Kiessling feels at times that’s exactly what it’s being used for to describe Grendel and his mother. For example he brings up the fact incubus’ drain the blood from their victims, and that’s exactly what Grendel did when he attacked the mead hall one night. He also brings up that maybe you shouldn't look at the word as being so literal for incubus as it’s used for other characters in the poem, “maere and its various forms modify royal persons or highly esteemed objects with formulaic consistency” (Kiessling 191). Unlike other articles I've read he focuses more on comparing and demonstrating Grendel being an incubus and shows proof that he is just a hybrid of several mythical beings. He even goes as far as saying that Grendel maybe a combination of an incubus, werewolf, and another creature. It’s interesting his interpretation of certain words, and his knowledge of history, leads him to believe what Grendel actually is and that is a blood-sucking monster.
Reflection on Scholars Something I found similar in all the research articles that I’m using is they all revert back to Grendel and his relationship to Cain and try to get a deeper understand of Grendel. I also notice they compare Grendel to not being so different than the other people in the poem, in appearance and his personality. The author of Beowulf says of Grendel, “…this miserable man lived for a time in the land of giants, after the Creator had condemned him among Cain’s race” (Beowulf I. 104-07). With these few lines, many of the scholars talk about how Grendel is a descendant of Cain and compares how similar the two are with evidence coming from the story. Grendel is considered a “kin-killer” for killing the men in Hrothgar the same way Cain murdered his brother Abel. They both kill because of their jealousy as Grendel killed the people for being able to have fun and his was unable to and Cain killed his brother because he was jealous of all the attention he received. Many of the scholars also bring up how similar he is to human beings, especially the people in the poem. He feels pain, sorrow, anger, jealousy, he knows what joy is, and he even has human facial features. These are characteristics people have that they used to classify them from being different than animals and Grendel does have these characteristics. Nelson brings up a great point that Grendel is a mirror of the people who celebrate in Heorot, that his moral compass is only the opposite of the people, but that shows he is part human for him to have those morals. Reinhard brought up an interesting point when Grendel is referred to as an “anti-thegn” which is a parody of a person which goes along with Nelson’s view that Grendel is a mirror of people. All the scholars agree that Grendel is some type of monster, whether a giant or troll or incubus or leviathan, he is still related to humans in some way; whether that be personality or physical features.
Query on Articles While reading all the articles I’ve collected, I found something that has me really puzzled especially after reading Chapman’s article “Alas, Poor Grendel.” I’m confused on why the author made Grendel seem like such a horrible creature, but yet still tries to make him be human and try to show sympathy for him. It is obvious in Beowulf, the author painted Grendel to be a deformed-giant creature who loves eating people, but yet he tries to compare him as being part human. In Reinhard and Nelson’s article, they give evidence of Grendel being related to Cain, which shows he is of human decent or at least has human blood in him and the description of Grendel’s life begs for sympathy. He lives in a cave with his mother, deformed and exiled by humans, “deprived by joy” (Beowulf I. 105) and is just a lonely sad soul. Meanwhile the author gives us evidence that he is not human, and just a horrible creature that everyone should hate. In Kiessling’s article, ”Grendel: A New Aspect,” he beings up how Grendel sucks the blood and bones out of the men’s body he murdered, similar to that of a incubus (Kiessling 196). Meanwhile Nelson compares Grendel to a leviathan in his article and all six of the articles agree that he is either a troll or giant. The author of Beowulf is asking for our sympathy Grendel, but perceives him as a mythical evil creature that we should be afraid of. So my question is why should I feel sorry for this murdering beast? He was born of evil, lives his life as being evil, and yet you want me to feel sorry because it’s not his fault? Also one major question I have is Grendel really related to Cain? The author says Grendel is condemned to Cain’s race (Beowulf I. 106-07), but doesn’t that mean he is separate than Cain and only in the same category as him? This worries me because many of the scholars talk about him being directly related to Cain, but I interpret it differently. This is major for me because I also speak about him being directly linked to Cain and I could be wrong. I could be over thinking the sentence, but I see it a little differently.
Abstract of Journal Article
First glance at Grendel he is just this murderous fiend hell bent on killing and eating anyone who decides to have a good time close to him. If you look closer then you will notice Grendel is more than a cannibalistic demon; he is one of the people. Grendel is a mirror to the people in the sense he has morals, but his morals are the opposite of a normal person. Grendel represents the darker side of man/woman and reverts back to humans animal instinct; the need to eat and survive at any means. Grendel's emotion also seems child-like and its shown when he is mortally wounded by Beowulf, he no longer wants to fight and tries running away from battle. He tries to escape to the only place he knows, which is home with his mother. If he was such this big bad monster, why not fight until his final breathe? Besides just being an opposite, Grendel does share some of the normal traits with people, which make him a little to close for comfort. He is a descendant of Cain and has human like features that make it similar to other people in the story. In Chapman's article "Alas, Poor Grendel," the author brings up how Grendel had emotions and was "unhappy" because he was an outcast to the people close by and shunned upon for his "deformed" appearance. Farrell piggybacks on this idea of Grendel being shunned out in his article "The Evil Behind The Mask: Grendel's Pop Culture Evolution" and brings up Grendel attacks the mead hall out of jealousy, but eats people for food. Grendel has emotions similar to the men in the story, but he is fueled by other morals and different reasons. Farrell also bring up looking at his attacks of the mead hall, one can say his main motivation to kill is for food, as he took over twenty body's with him, and the other men in the story kill for fame and glory (Farrell 937). When you look at it that way, who's the real monster?
Argument Against a Scholar
In Chapman's article "Alas, Poor Grendel" he brings up the poet is asking for us to feel sympathy for Grendel because he is just a misunderstood soul; I don't think he deserves our sympathy for the things he has done. I understand he is misunderstood and he is looked down upon for his appearance, but that still doesn't give him the right to murder people and not at least make a weregild payment. "...he wanted no peace/ with any man of the Danish army/ nor ceased his deadly hatred, nor settled with money... (Beowulf 154-156). Chapman brings up several instances where the poet describes Grendel being in emotional pain that he has no control over because of the cards dealt in his life (Chapman 334). Grendel is born with a deformity that scares people away and it causes him to feel neglected and upset he is not seen as an equal, but it also makes him jealous to the point he attacks them. Although things in Grendel's life does make me feel some sympathy, his actions wipe that away as he murders many people because they decide to have a party close by. There is no evidence that Grendel is attacked at all before or after he is introduced for being different, there is nothing stating he even tries to make peace with the people, and he attacks more than once. I could feel sympathy if he showed some type of compassion, but instead he decides to keep being the monster they painted him as.
Annotated Bibliographies
Johansen, J.G. “Grendel the Brave? Beowulf, line 834” English Studies 63.3 (1981): 193-197. JSTOR Web. 23 Nov. 2014
Johansen's article "Grendel the Brave?" Has a misleading title where it leads one to think that maybe Grendel has done something heroic. Johansen does the complete opposite as he talks about the cowardly things Grendel did during and after his fight with Beowulf. At first he dissects lines 833-836 in Beowulf, the original version not the translated version, given different meanings to some of the vocabulary that was used. For instance he brings up the word "hilde-deor" in line 834 "that in this case it is better read as a reference to Grendel" (Johansen 193) rather than Beowulf. Johansen also seem fixated on the position of Grendel's arm and where it is hung, whether in the mead hall on the roof or outside of it for everyone to see. He also uses other words from the passage where he thinks it may apply to Grendel, but it doesn't make Grendel seem brave at all. Instead it only justifies him being a coward and proves Beowulf is the only Bree one during their interaction. "...Grendel leaves his hand...so he will be able to gain his freedom and preserve his life" (Johansen 195). The only time the author relates Grendel to bravery is when he says, "Before he encounters Beowulf, Grendel, like any heroic warrior, has brave intentions" (Johansen 196). Johansen's title is confusing as he leaves me wondering if he really thinks Grendel is brave, but he shoots that down repeatedly proving Grendel was nothing more than a coward who ran from a losing fight.
Fajardo-Acosta, Fidel. “Intemperance, Fratricide, and the Elusiveness of Grendel” English Studies 3.1 (1992): 205-210. JSTOR Web. 21 Nov. 2014
Acosta brings up a great question in his article "Intemperance, Fratricide, and the Elusiveness of Grendel" where he asks, "Why was it then that Danes could not put together a large enough army to confront and defeat the monster?" (Acosta 205). He brings up an excellent point that this town of pirates were being terrorized by Grendel for twelve years and couldn't kill or capture him. He brings up they did not have "lack of courage and fighting power" (Acosta 205), but he didn't understand why they failed for twelve years to protect their land. It is questionable how a town full of people were unable to fight off Grendel, but one outsider was able to wrestle and kill Grendel off his first try. It can be blamed on Grendel's magic against weapons or they believed him to be the devil, but for them to not successfully do anything for so long shows how big of a failure they were against Grendel. During Beowulf's battle with Grendel, he proved he wasn't invisible and Grendel had a limit, but for some reason a whole town was unsuccessful. Acosta also does give Beowulf credit for having self control to stay sober until Grendel attacked and for being able to defeat Grendel by himself with no armor. He applauds him that he is capable of restraining from acting like the other men and his "temperance" is the reason why he has the ability to defeat Grendel. He quotes another author, Bandy, "only the warrior who is first defeated by his own weakness can become the prey of Grendel and his evil" (Acosta 210), but because Beowulf didn't allow himself to get drunk he was able to overpower Grendel.
Sandner, David. “Tracking Grendel: The Uncanny in Beowulf” Extrapolation 40.2 (1999): 162-170. JSTOR Web. 21 Nov. 2014
Sandner wrote a great article called "Tracking Grendel: The Uncanny in Beowulf" giving a different point of view on Grendel and his relationship in the story. He quotes Freud about when an uncanny experience has occurred, and in Beowulf one of the experiences is "when primitive beliefs we have surmounted seem once more to be confirmed" (Sandner 163). This is regarding Grendel in the sense he has reverted back to humans primal state where they are motivated by the need to survive and mostly all action. Sandner uses many other author articles to prove his point that Grendel is more than just a monster, but he is also a man just he is bigger. He quotes Shippey and Baird about the conflict between Grendel being a monster or just a freak of nature as Shippey says "A striking fact about Grendel is that he represents a problem of taxonomy"(Sandner 164). He also brings up the frightening idea that all men have a little Grendel in them; the dark-side of man people try to suppress and avoid admitting. "Grendel's uncanniness allow us, on the one hand, to fear him and, on the other, to fear we might be him" (Sandner 165).
Goals
Annotated Bibliographies
Farrell, Jennifer Kelso. “The Evil Behind the Mask: Grendel’s Pop Culture Evolution.” Journal Of Popular Culture 41.6 (2008): 934-949. Academic Search Complete. Web. 9 Oct. 2014
Farrell writes about how Grendel is perceived in the story by other characters and the real world. Grendel is an outcast from humans, and although he is considered a monster Farrell gives a little proof that the author also tries to humanize him. She also gives examples of other works regarding Grendel, for example, John Gardner’s novel Grendel she describes “…puts the reader directly in Grendel’s head…” (Farrell 939). Farrell gives good examples of Grendel in different pieces of work, but they all have the same conclusion; Grendel is an evil being who enjoys violence, killing, and is greedy. We see Grendel kill and eat humans and this is where Farrell gives evidence of Grendel being related to Cain. Not only does she use obvious proof in the reading, she also points out Grendel is a killer somewhat of a brother killer because he kills human beings like Cain killed Abel (Farrell 937). My main idea for my paper is showing Grendel, although described as being different, he was human in more ways than one. He has human blood in him, which came from Cain, but also his personality makes him human-like as he has the same feelings as humans do. Farrell gives good examples of both lineage and personality that he is very similar to other characters.
Nelson, Brent. “Cain-Leviathan Typology in Gollum and Grendel.” Extrapolation. 49.3 (2008): 466-483. Academic Search Complete. Web. 9 Oct. 2014
The article written by Nelson gives a great perception of how Grendel is connected not only to Cain, but also Leviathan. He also talks about how Grendel was an inspiration for Gollum, which gives a good understanding of how Cain influenced the creation of both of them. He also brings up several times how Grendel is a mirror of the people in the poem, like how he is “a fierce spirit who dwelt “pystrum bad”” (Nelson 469) and how the mead hall is full of festivities. He also brings it up how Grendel being a cannibalism contradicts on the people’s view of brotherhood. Nelson also brings up how similar he is to Cain physically and similar traits, for example, he “bears the mark of God’s anger” (Nelson 470) and how he is exiled the same way Cain was. I get a better understanding of Grendel and how similar he was to Cain on a physical and mental level. He seems to be not just a monster, but a human with different morals than the characters he is surrounded by.
Reinhard, Ben. "Grendel and the Penitentials." English Studies. 94.4 (2013). 371-385. Academic Search Complete. Web. 9 Oct. 2014
Reinhard's piece of writing touches on several great points on Grendel and how he is portrayed in the poem, gives his understanding on why Grendel is the way he is, and comparing him to Cain. He tried to give a better understanding of Grendel's character and uses evidence from the story and outside sources to prove his argument. He also compares Grendel to other characters who did similar things as him, but was no treated the same way. For example on the first page of the article he talks about violence between Hrothulf and Hrothgar's sons and neither of them are exiled or looked down upon the way Grendel was. Reinhard also compares Grendel's character to Cain in Penitential of Columbanus about how they are both "kin-killers" and were exiled due to their crimes. What I also like is Reinhard calls him a "anti-thegn" on page 372, which the footnote says is "a grotesque parody of a human." It's similar to one of the other articles that says Grendel is a mirror of human beings. In this article he is talked about as a mirror, but he represents the evil and violent side of man.
Story Summary
Beowulf is an outstanding story in poem form that follows the courageous hero Beowulf as he battles three mighty foes that no one was able to come close to defeating. We are first introduced to King Hrothgar and how he has built a mead hall for his men, but they seem to be having an issue with a murderous giant named Grendel. King Hrothgar sends word throughout the land if anyone is able to kill this Grendel he will be showered in gold. Beowulf and his men arrive and we are introduced to him, a serpent killing, giant spider stomping, hero that came to save the day. Beowulf and his men have a small party in the mead hall named Heorot, where all the attacks occurred and waited for Grendel to show. When Grendel showed up he got into a fight with Beowulf, who decided to fight the giant with no weapons, and was able to rip his arm off mortally wounding the monster for good. The King has a huge power for Beowulf and his men and stay true to his promise and showers them with riches beyond they could imagine. As they sleep Grendel’s mother attacks the mead hall and kidnaps the King’s trusted adviser as she runs away to her cave. The King asks for Beowulf’s help and promises him even more gold if he kills Grendel’s mother. Beowulf agrees and goes into the cave alone to fight the creature and tells the King to take care of his men in case he dies.
A battle ensues and because of Beowulf’s armor he survives a surprise attack and finds a sword on the wall and uses it to kill the beast. As he searches the cave he sees Grendel’s body and cuts his head off to bring back with him. As he returns the King rejoices in his success and throws another party for the hero and his men. Beowulf and his men leave back to their homeland where they tell the king and everyone of Beowulf’s bravery and accomplishments. It is then talked about how the King dies and Beowulf becomes the new King of his homeland for the next fifty years. An old man at this point, another creature is brought into the story, a dragon, threatens Beowulf’s kingdom and attacks his people because a thief has stolen his treasure. He puts his armor on again for another courageous fight without any weapons like he did with Grendel and succeeds to kill the murderous dragon, but is mortally wounded himself. His people take all the gold the dragon has been protecting, but feel ashamed Beowulf had to die for them to get it. Beowulf is praised for all eternity for his courageous actions and killing the three monsters.
Quotations
Quote #1: “I shall grapple with the fiend and fight for life, foe against foe. Let him put his faith in the Lord's judgment, whom death takes.” Beowulf VI 439-441.
In these two lines, one I find Beowulf to be a little cocky to fight the giant Grendel with no weapons or armor knowing he murdered so many men. Two I find Beowulf a little contradicting when he wants Grendel to pray to the God's, but yet he sees him as a demon figure. It also goes to my point that Beowulf is really sure of himself because he's basically saying he is going to make this demon ask for God's help. From the very beginning when I was introduced to Beowulf I kind of seen him as arrogant and someone with a huge ego. The stories he tells of killing monsters, although they do sound amazing, they are in the end just stories and I felt Beowulf may have been putting his foot in his mouth wanting to fight Grendel straight up. No sane person would go head to head with a giant who is supposedly a descendant of Cain and who is made up of pure evil. The fact Grendel killed about thirty people already before and ate them while some were still alive is terrifying and to think one man is down to fight him with no weapons is insane. Beowulf being so confident shows either he's really that good or he's just to all there.
The second part I'm confused about whether Beowulf was just contradicting himself or if he is really that confident in his fighting. He talks about Grendel putting his faith in the Lord's, but know he is an descendant of Cain and calls him a devil, so why even bring it up? Knowing Grendel probably hates the God's or doesn't believe them why say it? Unless he is that confident that he will succeed in beating Grendel, he forces him to pray for some type of mercy. With just two lines Beowulf is able to show how confident and how stronger he is than Grendel even though he has not seen him yet
Quote #2: “This grim spirit was called Grendel, mighty stalker of the marches, who held the moors and fens; this miserable man lived for a time in the land of giants, after the Creator had condemned him among Cain's race- when he killed Abel the eternal Lord avenged that death.” Beowulf I 102-108.
This is when we are introduced to Grendel and giving a little history about where he came from. What I find interesting is Grendel was an outcast by the Creator, and at the same time he was an outsider to the people in Hrothgar’s kingdom. We know he is not welcomed in the town of King Hrothgar’s land because he has murdered many people and refuses to pay for their deaths, but not much is giving why the Creator banished him. Other than being a giant what was his reason? It almost seems Grendel's fate was already written for him because he was singled out just for being a giant. It's understandable that in the end he did become a murderous monster, but he was seen as that from the beginning which could have lead him to be that way. Everyone was calling him a monster so mine as well act like one, but I find it more interesting he is basically part of Cain's race which makes him part human. Maybe he could have had a chance to be different if only he was accepted? He maybe a giant from Cain's race, but that still means he has some part of good in there.
Quote #3: “The water was welling with blood there-the terrible swirling waves, all mingled together with hot gore, heaved with blood of battle, concealed that doomed one when, deprived of joys, he laid down his life in his lair in the fen, his heathen soul-and Hell took him.” Beowulf XIII 847-852.
The death of Grendel revealed several things to me about the monster. His death was exactly how his life was; full of pain and sorrow and solitary. Grendel was born with murderous urges that made him different than his fellow man that cause him to be an outsider. He killed many people causing others pain and in return was not accepted and was shunned by others leaving him to be in pain and being alone other than his mother. Blood is brought up several times as blood was a part of his life, having the blood of a monster in him while having the same blood as the people he killed. Also the blood he spilled and drank could now be seen leaking out of his body as a karma type thing. He also called a heathen, but at this time Beowulf and the other characters are pagan, wouldn't that make them also heathens? It makes another connection between Grendel and the people he killed that maybe he wasn't so different. The author tries to take that thought out of my head when he says Grendel goes to Hell, because Beowulf and the other people do not go there; no they all go to heaven apparently.
Annotated Bibliographies
Chapman, Roger L. “Alas, Poor Grendel.” College English 17.6 (1956): 334-337. JSTOR. Web. 2 Nov. 2014
In Chapman’s article “Alas, Poor Grendel” he not only talks about how he feels sympathy for Grendel, but the author also felt sympathy for him. While I was reading the article, I noticed he brings up a lot that the author was stuck between emotions, “felt two kinds of emotion toward Grendel and wavered between them” (Chapman 335), making Grendel this devilish creature and has compassion for him. Chapman brings up numerous passages where he believes the author is trying to express some sympathy for Grendel while describing the type of monster he is in appearance and his personality (Chapman 334). After thinking about it I was a little confused as why the author would paint Grendel as something so evil, but then try and make me feel sorry for him. It’s like he wanted to show Grendel being such a horrific character, but it’s not his fault for being so evil; he was born that way. Chapman also questions the author’s knowledge of Christianity, “He applied Christian charity without discrimination, or without understanding:” (Chapman 335), since there are some discrepancies in Beowulf. I found Chapman’s take on this interesting because the characters are pagan and he assumes the author should know about Christianity when they don’t believe in “no Heaven, Hell, nor Purgatory” (Chapman 335). It does make me wonder why the author would even put anything Christian in a story where all the characters follow paganism.
Gardner, John. Grendel. New York: Knopf, 1971. iPad
In Gardner’s book “Grendel,” he gives a first person narrative of what he believes Grendel’s life was like in Beowulf. Although I have not fully read the whole book, I was only able to download nine out of twelve chapters, Gardner gives a look into the mind of Grendel and his feelings about the the people he has met. It’s interesting Gardner tries to make Grendel seem like a misunderstood soul, that there is more to him other than a murderous monster. I like how He compares Grendel to the other characters, for example he notices the humans attack and murder one another for things so small, but yet he is looked down upon when he does the same thing. He kills sometimes to eat, while he notices humans will kill because of their emotions or for land or something as dumb as not agreeing with one another. Gardner also makes Grendel embrace his destructive side, as Grendel is treated rudely and attacked he decides if they want to treat him like a monster, he will start acting like one. It reminds me of the Creature in Frankenstein where he also embraced his evil side because people treated him as if he was evil. I also found interesting Gardner decided to put the dragon into his story and sort of make him a friend of Grendel, and in the real story Beowulf it isn't classified if they even knew one another.
Kiessling, Nicolas K. “Grendel: A New Aspect.” Modern Philology, 65.3 (1968). JSTOR
Web. 2 Nov. 2014
It seems to me that Kiessling’s article “Grendel; A New Aspect” focuses on the vocabulary and how some words are used in the Beowulf to describe Grendel. He brings up the word “maere” often and the different meanings other scholars and himself see it being used in the story. The word originally means a succubus or incubus and Kiessling feels at times that’s exactly what it’s being used for to describe Grendel and his mother. For example he brings up the fact incubus’ drain the blood from their victims, and that’s exactly what Grendel did when he attacked the mead hall one night. He also brings up that maybe you shouldn't look at the word as being so literal for incubus as it’s used for other characters in the poem, “maere and its various forms modify royal persons or highly esteemed objects with formulaic consistency” (Kiessling 191). Unlike other articles I've read he focuses more on comparing and demonstrating Grendel being an incubus and shows proof that he is just a hybrid of several mythical beings. He even goes as far as saying that Grendel maybe a combination of an incubus, werewolf, and another creature. It’s interesting his interpretation of certain words, and his knowledge of history, leads him to believe what Grendel actually is and that is a blood-sucking monster.
Reflection on Scholars
Something I found similar in all the research articles that I’m using is they all revert back to Grendel and his relationship to Cain and try to get a deeper understand of Grendel. I also notice they compare Grendel to not being so different than the other people in the poem, in appearance and his personality. The author of Beowulf says of Grendel, “…this miserable man lived for a time in the land of giants, after the Creator had condemned him among Cain’s race” (Beowulf I. 104-07). With these few lines, many of the scholars talk about how Grendel is a descendant of Cain and compares how similar the two are with evidence coming from the story. Grendel is considered a “kin-killer” for killing the men in Hrothgar the same way Cain murdered his brother Abel. They both kill because of their jealousy as Grendel killed the people for being able to have fun and his was unable to and Cain killed his brother because he was jealous of all the attention he received. Many of the scholars also bring up how similar he is to human beings, especially the people in the poem. He feels pain, sorrow, anger, jealousy, he knows what joy is, and he even has human facial features. These are characteristics people have that they used to classify them from being different than animals and Grendel does have these characteristics. Nelson brings up a great point that Grendel is a mirror of the people who celebrate in Heorot, that his moral compass is only the opposite of the people, but that shows he is part human for him to have those morals. Reinhard brought up an interesting point when Grendel is referred to as an “anti-thegn” which is a parody of a person which goes along with Nelson’s view that Grendel is a mirror of people. All the scholars agree that Grendel is some type of monster, whether a giant or troll or incubus or leviathan, he is still related to humans in some way; whether that be personality or physical features.
Query on Articles
While reading all the articles I’ve collected, I found something that has me really puzzled especially after reading Chapman’s article “Alas, Poor Grendel.” I’m confused on why the author made Grendel seem like such a horrible creature, but yet still tries to make him be human and try to show sympathy for him. It is obvious in Beowulf, the author painted Grendel to be a deformed-giant creature who loves eating people, but yet he tries to compare him as being part human. In Reinhard and Nelson’s article, they give evidence of Grendel being related to Cain, which shows he is of human decent or at least has human blood in him and the description of Grendel’s life begs for sympathy. He lives in a cave with his mother, deformed and exiled by humans, “deprived by joy” (Beowulf I. 105) and is just a lonely sad soul. Meanwhile the author gives us evidence that he is not human, and just a horrible creature that everyone should hate. In Kiessling’s article, ”Grendel: A New Aspect,” he beings up how Grendel sucks the blood and bones out of the men’s body he murdered, similar to that of a incubus (Kiessling 196). Meanwhile Nelson compares Grendel to a leviathan in his article and all six of the articles agree that he is either a troll or giant. The author of Beowulf is asking for our sympathy Grendel, but perceives him as a mythical evil creature that we should be afraid of. So my question is why should I feel sorry for this murdering beast? He was born of evil, lives his life as being evil, and yet you want me to feel sorry because it’s not his fault? Also one major question I have is Grendel really related to Cain? The author says Grendel is condemned to Cain’s race (Beowulf I. 106-07), but doesn’t that mean he is separate than Cain and only in the same category as him? This worries me because many of the scholars talk about him being directly related to Cain, but I interpret it differently. This is major for me because I also speak about him being directly linked to Cain and I could be wrong. I could be over thinking the sentence, but I see it a little differently.
Abstract of Journal Article
First glance at Grendel he is just this murderous fiend hell bent on killing and eating anyone who decides to have a good time close to him. If you look closer then you will notice Grendel is more than a cannibalistic demon; he is one of the people. Grendel is a mirror to the people in the sense he has morals, but his morals are the opposite of a normal person. Grendel represents the darker side of man/woman and reverts back to humans animal instinct; the need to eat and survive at any means. Grendel's emotion also seems child-like and its shown when he is mortally wounded by Beowulf, he no longer wants to fight and tries running away from battle. He tries to escape to the only place he knows, which is home with his mother. If he was such this big bad monster, why not fight until his final breathe? Besides just being an opposite, Grendel does share some of the normal traits with people, which make him a little to close for comfort. He is a descendant of Cain and has human like features that make it similar to other people in the story. In Chapman's article "Alas, Poor Grendel," the author brings up how Grendel had emotions and was "unhappy" because he was an outcast to the people close by and shunned upon for his "deformed" appearance. Farrell piggybacks on this idea of Grendel being shunned out in his article "The Evil Behind The Mask: Grendel's Pop Culture Evolution" and brings up Grendel attacks the mead hall out of jealousy, but eats people for food. Grendel has emotions similar to the men in the story, but he is fueled by other morals and different reasons. Farrell also bring up looking at his attacks of the mead hall, one can say his main motivation to kill is for food, as he took over twenty body's with him, and the other men in the story kill for fame and glory (Farrell 937). When you look at it that way, who's the real monster?
Argument Against a Scholar
In Chapman's article "Alas, Poor Grendel" he brings up the poet is asking for us to feel sympathy for Grendel because he is just a misunderstood soul; I don't think he deserves our sympathy for the things he has done. I understand he is misunderstood and he is looked down upon for his appearance, but that still doesn't give him the right to murder people and not at least make a weregild payment. "...he wanted no peace/ with any man of the Danish army/ nor ceased his deadly hatred, nor settled with money... (Beowulf 154-156). Chapman brings up several instances where the poet describes Grendel being in emotional pain that he has no control over because of the cards dealt in his life (Chapman 334). Grendel is born with a deformity that scares people away and it causes him to feel neglected and upset he is not seen as an equal, but it also makes him jealous to the point he attacks them. Although things in Grendel's life does make me feel some sympathy, his actions wipe that away as he murders many people because they decide to have a party close by. There is no evidence that Grendel is attacked at all before or after he is introduced for being different, there is nothing stating he even tries to make peace with the people, and he attacks more than once. I could feel sympathy if he showed some type of compassion, but instead he decides to keep being the monster they painted him as.
Annotated Bibliographies
Johansen, J.G. “Grendel the Brave? Beowulf, line 834” English Studies 63.3 (1981): 193-197. JSTOR Web. 23 Nov. 2014
Johansen's article "Grendel the Brave?" Has a misleading title where it leads one to think that maybe Grendel has done something heroic. Johansen does the complete opposite as he talks about the cowardly things Grendel did during and after his fight with Beowulf. At first he dissects lines 833-836 in Beowulf, the original version not the translated version, given different meanings to some of the vocabulary that was used. For instance he brings up the word "hilde-deor" in line 834 "that in this case it is better read as a reference to Grendel" (Johansen 193) rather than Beowulf. Johansen also seem fixated on the position of Grendel's arm and where it is hung, whether in the mead hall on the roof or outside of it for everyone to see. He also uses other words from the passage where he thinks it may apply to Grendel, but it doesn't make Grendel seem brave at all. Instead it only justifies him being a coward and proves Beowulf is the only Bree one during their interaction. "...Grendel leaves his hand...so he will be able to gain his freedom and preserve his life" (Johansen 195). The only time the author relates Grendel to bravery is when he says, "Before he encounters Beowulf, Grendel, like any heroic warrior, has brave intentions" (Johansen 196). Johansen's title is confusing as he leaves me wondering if he really thinks Grendel is brave, but he shoots that down repeatedly proving Grendel was nothing more than a coward who ran from a losing fight.
Fajardo-Acosta, Fidel. “Intemperance, Fratricide, and the Elusiveness of Grendel” English Studies 3.1 (1992): 205-210. JSTOR Web. 21 Nov. 2014
Acosta brings up a great question in his article "Intemperance, Fratricide, and the Elusiveness of Grendel" where he asks, "Why was it then that Danes could not put together a large enough army to confront and defeat the monster?" (Acosta 205). He brings up an excellent point that this town of pirates were being terrorized by Grendel for twelve years and couldn't kill or capture him. He brings up they did not have "lack of courage and fighting power" (Acosta 205), but he didn't understand why they failed for twelve years to protect their land. It is questionable how a town full of people were unable to fight off Grendel, but one outsider was able to wrestle and kill Grendel off his first try. It can be blamed on Grendel's magic against weapons or they believed him to be the devil, but for them to not successfully do anything for so long shows how big of a failure they were against Grendel. During Beowulf's battle with Grendel, he proved he wasn't invisible and Grendel had a limit, but for some reason a whole town was unsuccessful. Acosta also does give Beowulf credit for having self control to stay sober until Grendel attacked and for being able to defeat Grendel by himself with no armor. He applauds him that he is capable of restraining from acting like the other men and his "temperance" is the reason why he has the ability to defeat Grendel. He quotes another author, Bandy, "only the warrior who is first defeated by his own weakness can become the prey of Grendel and his evil" (Acosta 210), but because Beowulf didn't allow himself to get drunk he was able to overpower Grendel.
Sandner, David. “Tracking Grendel: The Uncanny in Beowulf” Extrapolation 40.2 (1999): 162-170. JSTOR Web. 21 Nov. 2014
Sandner wrote a great article called "Tracking Grendel: The Uncanny in Beowulf" giving a different point of view on Grendel and his relationship in the story. He quotes Freud about when an uncanny experience has occurred, and in Beowulf one of the experiences is "when primitive beliefs we have surmounted seem once more to be confirmed" (Sandner 163). This is regarding Grendel in the sense he has reverted back to humans primal state where they are motivated by the need to survive and mostly all action. Sandner uses many other author articles to prove his point that Grendel is more than just a monster, but he is also a man just he is bigger. He quotes Shippey and Baird about the conflict between Grendel being a monster or just a freak of nature as Shippey says "A striking fact about Grendel is that he represents a problem of taxonomy"(Sandner 164). He also brings up the frightening idea that all men have a little Grendel in them; the dark-side of man people try to suppress and avoid admitting. "Grendel's uncanniness allow us, on the one hand, to fear him and, on the other, to fear we might be him" (Sandner 165).